> ACTION-94: Review RT issues and re-classify the targets - WS-Fragment | RT | Moot
We took an action to scrub through open Working Group issues (http://tinyurl.com/rt-issues) that apply to the Resource Transfer specification. Here are our draft findings .
Applies to WS-Fragment
1. The WG can safely re-target the following issue to WS-Fragment
a) 6407 RT: define policy
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6407
Close With No Action
2. The WG can safely close the following issues with no actions if the WG decides to retire RT
a) 6422: RT - Introduces An Ad Hoc Boxcarring Mechanism
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6422
Why? WS-Fragment does not include a boxcarring mechanism.
b) 6549: RT - Create focused on resource fragments
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6549
Why? This issue is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not include a fragment-level create operation.
c) 6552: RT - Lifecycle metadata for Create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6552
Why? WS-Fragment does not include any lifecycle metadata features.
d) 6576: RT - No Fault Defined for Mismatch between
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6576 ResourceTransfer header and message body
Why? WS-Fragment does not use a SOAP header.
e) 6578: RT - SideEffects applies to other faults
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6578
Why? This issue is germane if and only if a boxcarring mechanism is used. WS-Fragment does not include a boxcarring mechanism.
f) 6579: RT - Bad fragment values with Create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6579
Why? This issue is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not define a fragment-level create operation.
g) 6603: RT - Inconsistencies in CreateResponse message
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6603
Why? This issue is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not define a fragment-level create operation.
h) 6634: RT - Document algorithm for modify
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6634
Why? This issue is germane if and only if a boxcarring mechanism is used. WS-Fragment does not include a boxcarring mechanism.
i) 6636: RT- Add example of resource after the create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6636
Why? There are two parts here - the first part applies to an example that illustrates a fragment-level create operation and the second part talks about what is the type of a resource created (by a fragment-level create operation). The first part is germane if and only if a fragment-level create operation is defined. WS-Fragment does not define a fragment-level create operation. The second part was split as an independent issue (6711) and was resolved by the WG.
3. The WG can safely close the following issue with no actions:
a) 6550: RT - Support for XSLT and XQuery in PUT
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6550
Why? XSLT or XQuery can be used as an expression dialect in fragment-level operations that are defined in WS-Fragment. We are not aware of any requirements to define such built-in dialects.
Defer to Yves
4. We defer analysis of the last RT issue to Yves
a) 7013 - Transfer: Partial PUT and Versioning
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7013
Related action is 67 - http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/67.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:41 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: WS-Fragment uploaded
All,
Â Ram and I have just checked in ws-frag [1] for the WG's consideration. Â There are still a couple of minor things that need to be cleaned up - like fixing up the xsd - there's a list of open questions at the bottom of the doc. But we think this is a pretty good starting point. Â If the WG approves of this direction then we're hoping that it will remove the need for the RT spec.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsfrag.html
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Â Standards Architect Â | Â IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 Â | Â IBM 444-6905 Â | Â dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.